Christopher A. Brown being first duly sworn on his oath deposes and says:

David Edward Attias on the night of February 23, 2001; the same day Benjamin Greenspon defendant, in a criminal action, Case No. SB191832 of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara, failed to subpoena in his defense the defendant in the civil action 220298, as Greenspon was empowered by the affiants information to do so consisting of an AMICUS CURIAE and AFFIDAVIT applied for in that case; used his vehicle to destroy 4 lives on Sabado Tarde Street in Isla Vista. The District Attorney also failed to use the information of the AMICUS CURIAE of case, SB191832 that stated, as does the AMICUS CURIAE of this case; "also concern many other events in the jurisdiction of the court that present a threat to "security to persons and property".
The information of this AMICUS CURIAE concerns the influence applied to David Edward Attias unconscious mind from childhood by unknown persons without the defendants knowledge or his parents knowledge. That influence is directly responsible for the defendants psychology and statements at the scene concerning "the angel of death" as well as other tendencies to embrace "dark" spiritual elements including his sexuality. David Attias behavior prior to the events of the night of February 23, 2001 were triggered conditionally by others around him also influenced with post hypnotic "conditional instructions" applied many years prior to his crime.
The affiant attaches a letter (ATTACHMENT A) denying subpoena duces tecum in case 220298 to exemplify how the court, the parents of the defendant and the defendant could be unaware of the possibility the affiant asserts as causal to David Attias actions. The subpoena duces tecum of civil case 220298 was for the purpose of gaining evidence, arrest and booking records supporting Christopher A. Browns allegations of fact concerning 1,000 missing insanity actions from the Santa Barbara Superior Court case records. Had the District Attorney, the Court or Santa Barbara County acted with official discretion, always rightful and lawful, with regard to events warned of in affiants letters to Santa Barbara County supervisors and schools of 1997 located on the world wide web at; http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/nojustice/supeslet1.html and, respectively; http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/nojustice/schoolet1.html, psychology and law enforcement as well as the justice system would have been aware that the relatively benevolent element of Native American Medicine people were attempting to provide information and methods, through compulsion or coercion applied to affiant, by uses of the same unrecognized influences to the unconscious mind, to safeguard the American public from what is termed "satanic" or other mental influence creating extreme behaviors historically hidden from view as a part of human society generally.
Or if the judicial officers of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara fully recognized the affiants Fourteenth Amendment rights of the United States Constitution as needed by affiant in the cases to be cited, David Edward Attias would not have been in Santa Barbara County on February 23, 2001 or he would have been in the care of the County Mental Health Department. The potentials of unconscious mental influence from one person to another alleged in affiants civil actions, 220298, 226736, and 01035100 of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara, would have been verified and the field of psychology would have been empowered by the development of appropriate analysis and treatment as summarily defined in the attached letters (ATTACHMENTS B & C) ATTACHMENT B, a letter from the Santa Barbara County Mental Health Director confirming a meeting between the director and the affiant where the director states that a request for permission to administer experimental treatments directly to the unconscious mind with combinations of hypnosis and nitrous oxide would be carried to the State of California Mental Health and the response of the State would be provided to the affiant in writing. ATTACHMENT C is a Freedom of Information Act (F.O.I.A) request to Santa Barbara County Supervisor Susan Rose, the supervisor of the district of the Mental Health Department as well as the affiant. The F.O.I.A request, Federal law, never received a response.
Affiant designates ATTACHMENT D to provide support for his assertions of the psychologically element applied to David Attias causal to his crime. ATTACHMENT D comprised of 3 pages is the opening response of the defendant in case 220298. On the second page is the statement "defendant John Ruiz inflicted "harmful hypnotic telepathy" upon him". Affiant as plaintiff in 220298 never claimed influence using the word "telepathy". The opening statement, for the first time brings that word into the case. It should be noted that the opening statement does not deny any allegation but does compile from the plaintiffs responses to requests for admissions actions that the defendant deems relevant to describing hypnotic activities.
ATTACHMENT E is a copy of page 911 of Blacks Law dictionary of 1933 describing hypnosis as "perhaps the exercise of a telepathic power mot as yet fully understood". Affiant asserts that the phenomena vaguely documented as "transference" in experiments, research or treatments of hypnosis is telepathy.
On the third page of ATTACHMENT D is a description of relevant evidence. the opening statement describes plaintiffs allegations of fact as "spectral evidence" and not relevant evidence, or not admissible since the "Salem witch trials according to plaintiffs own legal research". Plaintiff had or has not ever done such research as such research would take great monetary expense and time, not ever available to plaintiff/affiant and the defendants use of the term "spectral" is done to make a mockery of the courts inability to deal rationally with abuses of hypnosis as well as to support the tendency of the judge to reject all of plaintiffs allegations.
ATTACHMENT F (consisting of 4 pages) is copy of pages of a book called "EMOTIONS and MEMORY" and describes the effects of somnambulism. The word "spectral" refers to ghosts, the term "somnambulism" is a term from established experiments or research into hypnosis and is not "spectral" and therefore admissible evidence if properly implemented as such. Affiant constructs an inference, hereby titled "INFERENCE ONE" utilizing ATTACHMENT F.
BASIS 1 of INFERENCE
The first sentence of page 175 of EMOTIONS and MEMORY, 1964, by David Rappaport,
"The general tendency” of the subject to forget the events of the trance after emerging from it."
BASIS 2 of INFERENCE
(1) of the same paragraph states that, "The hypnotist can successfully suggest that no posthypnotic amnesia develop".
Basis 2 Restated; Suggestion conducive to remembering is successful or generally, suggestion effecting memory has effect against a general tendency.
CONDITIONS OF BASIS
The first note page 175, EMOTIONS and MEMORY, Note #8 states that the results of memory described "in general are valid only with subjects who are able to reach the somnambulistic stages of hypnosis."
INFERENCE
Logical inference of BASIS 1 with BASIS 2, is that; suggestion to forget will have a greater effect on memory because of the general “tendency to forget”. Research confirms with observations of behavior consistent with general hyper amnesia at the top of page 176, the end of a footnote that begins on page 175 stating; "we find hypnotized people indignantly denying they have been hypnotized."
INFERENCE ONE
If the tendency is to forget following hypnosis that induces a trance to the level of somnambulism and suggestion effecting memory is successful then suggestion to forget will be more effective than suggestion to remember.
Affiant presents this AMICUS CURIAE not as defense of David Attias but to demonstrate that unknown others share the guilt of David Attias and that without law enforcement, government, mental health and the courts developing acceptance of the potentials of unconscious communications through whatever means, those others will not ever be held accountable for their debt to society for the crimes committed. The information of this document could be useful defensively within an insanity plea or used in sentencing. However if the influence to the mind of David Attias is not determined by developing methods to detect such influence, other crimes that might be prevented as caused by such influence to unconscious minds endangering other lives of the public are at risk. This AMICUS CURIAE also has the purpose of defining a treatment for David Attias that may make it possible for him to reveal that he was indeed influenced and exploited in his unconscious mind which will relieve him of great torment and suffering. That treatment will relieve many other people suffering from the same influence and protect us all.